Gold Rush [32 bpp mod]

[V453000 :)]

If you want an advice for engine stats & progression, try to define a few groups/classes of engines.

If you want it simple, make the newer generations in a class better in all aspects, and they will always feel welcome and powerful.

If the classes are distinct enough, it will be interesting as the player has a choice which engine to use.

NUTS goes to extreme lengths with this, but anything like "more TE&power but low speed" vs. "high speed but poor acceleration" is already good.

If you want passenger trains for short/long distance, the most important aspect is loading speed and capacity.

Thank you, those are really good suggestions.

Do you have any opinions on the freight modifier? Should I take it to account or try to get the right balance without it?

I'm also unsure about the air drag coefficient. Does it affect max speed or acceleration... or both?

Finally, how can I best simulate speed loss in curves due to the lack of a leading truck? Should I use a callback that automatically decreases the speed when the engine enters a curve, or are there better ways to achieve this?

I generally really dislike the freight modifier, just like I dislike too high capacity wagons. Mainly because if you try to balance trains to accelerate ~reasonably~ when full, if you have a freight weight multiplier or high capacity wagons, the train will probably be totally silly when accelerating empty [silly even for my terms].

I have air drag coefficient on a SUPER WTF value of air_drag_coefficient: 0.004; in NML, which disables air drag (0.004*255 ~= 1). I absolutely dislike that a tunnel slows the train down - and it can be quite significant, at least at higher speeds - Also, I prefer to balance just power for when the train reaches max speed, this is an extra value that's not helping.

Causing curve speed loss if a vehicle just enters a curve sounds very harsh and it would probably be quite weird in terms of how it calculates the curves. There is probably no reasonable way to do this, as the lowest curve speed is the one normal rail vehicles use. However, if this pull request gets merged, you will be able to reduce the curve speed down to -95%, so if you build short curves, the train just goes 2km/h through it. I'll be using this feature very extensively for future NUTS versions.

[Bad_Brett]

I generally really dislike the freight modifier, just like I dislike too high capacity wagons. Mainly because if you try to balance trains to accelerate ~reasonably~ when full, if you have a freight weight multiplier or high capacity wagons, the train will probably be totally silly when accelerating empty [silly even for my terms].

I have air drag coefficient on a SUPER WTF value of air_drag_coefficient: 0.004; in NML, which disables air drag (0.004*255 ~= 1). I absolutely dislike that a tunnel slows the train down - and it can be quite significant, at least at higher speeds - Also, I prefer to balance just power for when the train reaches max speed, this is an extra value that's not helping.

Causing curve speed loss if a vehicle just enters a curve sounds very harsh and it would probably be quite weird in terms of how it calculates the curves. There is probably no reasonable way to do this, as the lowest curve speed is the one normal rail vehicles use. However, if this pull request gets merged, you will be able to reduce the curve speed down to -95%, so if you build short curves, the train just goes 2km/h through it. I'll be using this feature very extensively for future NUTS versions.

Very helpful and interesting! I agree about the tunnels, so I might disable air drag myself...

I feel like curve speed loss would be an interesting addition, because that was one of the main reasons why i.e the 4-4-0 was faster than the 2-6-0. More driving wheels = better tractive effort, more leading wheels = better at handling curves. So while setting the speed of a 2-6-0 to 30 mph might be good for game balance, it isn't very realistic, since they in act could achieve quite high speeds on straight lines. If I understand you correctly, there's a branch that implements this? In that case I'll leave it for now and hope that it gets merged.

[V453000 :)]

I generally really dislike the freight modifier, just like I dislike too high capacity wagons. Mainly because if you try to balance trains to accelerate ~reasonably~ when full, if you have a freight weight multiplier or high capacity wagons, the train will probably be totally silly when accelerating empty [silly even for my terms].

I have air drag coefficient on a SUPER WTF value of air_drag_coefficient: 0.004; in NML, which disables air drag (0.004*255 ~= 1). I absolutely dislike that a tunnel slows the train down - and it can be quite significant, at least at higher speeds - Also, I prefer to balance just power for when the train reaches max speed, this is an extra value that's not helping.

Causing curve speed loss if a vehicle just enters a curve sounds very harsh and it would probably be quite weird in terms of how it calculates the curves. There is probably no reasonable way to do this, as the lowest curve speed is the one normal rail vehicles use. However, if this pull request gets merged, you will be able to reduce the curve speed down to -95%, so if you build short curves, the train just goes 2km/h through it. I'll be using this feature very extensively for future NUTS versions.

Very helpful and interesting! I agree about the tunnels, so I might disable air drag myself...

I feel like curve speed loss would be an interesting addition, because that was one of the main reasons why i.e the 4-4-0 was faster than the 2-6-0. More driving wheels = better tractive effort, more leading wheels = better at handling curves. So while setting the speed of a 2-6-0 to 30 mph might be good for game balance, it isn't very realistic, since they in act could achieve quite high speeds on straight lines. If I understand you correctly, there's a branch that implements this? In that case I'll leave it for now and hope that it gets merged.

Ah yes I'm sorry I forgot to paste the link https://github.com/OpenTTD/OpenTTD/pull/9346 it's a pull request, yes. And indeed, it's good idea to wait until it's merged.

You know I don't like realism much, BUT "fullspeed curve length" is one of the most interesting factors for balancing, as that very directly dictates how tracks can be built for this train. More power or more acceleration generally doesn't influence the tracks much, unless there's so little traction and power that trains can't climb hills easily anymore.

[Bad_Brett]

Ah yes I'm sorry I forgot to paste the link https://github.com/OpenTTD/OpenTTD/pull/9346 it's a pull request, yes. And indeed, it's good idea to wait until it's merged.

You know I don't like realism much, BUT "fullspeed curve length" is one of the most interesting factors for balancing, as that very directly dictates how tracks can be built for this train. More power or more acceleration generally doesn't influence the tracks much, unless there's so little traction and power that trains can't climb hills easily anymore.

Oh, that's exactly what I'm looking for. Endless possibilities!

[V453000 :)]

Ah yes I'm sorry I forgot to paste the link https://github.com/OpenTTD/OpenTTD/pull/9346 it's a pull request, yes. And indeed, it's good idea to wait until it's merged.

You know I don't like realism much, BUT "fullspeed curve length" is one of the most interesting factors for balancing, as that very directly dictates how tracks can be built for this train. More power or more acceleration generally doesn't influence the tracks much, unless there's so little traction and power that trains can't climb hills easily anymore.

Oh, that's exactly what I'm looking for. Endless possibilities!

It's an absolutely amazing feature. I'm already using it in multiple places:
- instead of railtype speeds (monorail / maglev typically), I now set it on vehicles, so even if they travel on universal tracks, they still behave consistently (probably not your use case though)
- replacing tilt (flat +20% bonus) with a much more flexible system
- when you use shorter vehicles (for example length of units 4 [original trains have 8]) at the head and tail of the train, it can happen that they slow down in curves you wouldn't expect them to slow down in. For example, a 2 tile train will slow down in a typical "3 piece diagonal" curve that normal 8/8 trains don't slow down in. This curve_speed_mod can be set as a callback too, so you can detect length of train, and dynamically adjust the curve speed so even these trains travel through curves as they should. For the end user this "just works" while for me this is a super elegant fix.
- with the short vehicles, for one specific class (the fastest and strongest) I just embraced the "curves need to be 0.5 tile longer than train) and instead gave these trains -75% curve speed bonus. For a maglev train that travels 555km/h, going 22km/h through 45deg curves is really serious - by the way a 2x45 is also in a typical depot entrance, reducing the depot entering speed from 60ish km/h to 22 can be a big deal. This way it's the hardest train to tame, but very rewarding if you manage to do it.

I like to make a pallalel to Lev3 vs Lev4 in the base game. Lev3 is much more powerful and easier to multiply as it's shorter, while Lev4 is the deceptively obvious top of the line train. Similarly they have this relation where Lev3 works better on a normal network, while Lev4 has higher throughput if you "can tame it". However, the "taming" in Lev3 x Lev4 is only acceleration related. This sounds (and sounded to me) interesting, first you try to solve it by for example longer priorities, and trying to build more tracks tahn you'd normally need so these trains could have enough space to accelerate. The problem is, there always eventually comes a point when your network can't really handle it and you can't expand well enough, and the slower but much more powerful train becomes the superior choice. In the base game you can't feasibly autoreplace from Lev4 to Lev3 so the game usually just ends there as you give up. In NUTS you can autoreplace from anything to anything, so you just "downgrade" from fast class to the stronger class.
But why I'm saying this is, it's much, much, MUUUCH better to be able to give fast trains really good acceleration, while taking curve speed away from them. It's a challenge. If you can build longer curves, you get rewarded by faster trains. While on the other hand strong trains get curve speed bonuses so they only need very short curves to move at full speed.

/nerdgasm

Anyway, thanks to the curve_speed_mod being able to be dynamically controlled via callback, there's probably a lot more interesting applications you can think of, I'm just trying to explain mine so perhaps it inspires you for your own solutions.

[Bad_Brett]

Thanks for all the input!

I'm done modelling most of the engines from the 19th century and thought it might be a good idea to share my ideas. First off, while my goal is to make the scenario historically accurate, I've decided to change some of the specs to make sure that each new engine actually is useful in one way or another. I also decided to inlclude a few engines that weren't that heavily used (such as the 0-8-0 "Mud Digger") to "fill the gaps".

Like I said earlier, I want newer engines to have that "wow" factor, but at the same time, I want the player to really think twice before upgrading. Each engine will have benefits and drawbacks. To make this kind of historically accurate, I have some basic ideas:

Leading Truck
- 0 leading axles = abyssmal curve speed
- 2 leading axles = average curve speed
- 4 leading axles = good curve speed

Fuel
- Anthacrite Coal burning engines have higher running cost and better reliability
- Wood burning engines have lower running costs
- Culm burning engines have incredibly low running costs and poor reliability

My goal is to create some really spicy options, such as a 4-4-0 that can do great speeds when pulling just a few cars, a 4-6-0 Camelback with almost no running cost but with really bad reliability and a 2-6-2 Praire with average specs but incredible vehicle life.

Anyway, here are the first four engines (the size of some of these might be a bit off, but I'll adjust that later). Bear in mind that these are just my ideas, so any input would be much appreciated .

0-4-0 "Grasshopper"

Introduction Date: 1830
Purpose: General
Speed: 25 mph

Benefits:
+ Cheap
+ Good reliability thanks to anthracite coal

Drawbacks:
- No leading truck causes poor curve speed
- High running cost due to anthracite coal

Comment
While this is scenario is heavily inspired by the western railroads, I just couldn't resist to include one of my childhood favorites. My idea is to use this engine as an early option for freight trains and give it slightly better power and tractive effort than the 2-4-0 John Bull

-----------------------------------------------------------------

2-4-0 John Bull

Introduction Date: 1833
Purpose: Passengers
Speed: 28 mph

Benefits:
+ Cheap
+ Low running cost due to wood burning

Drawbacks:
- Poor reliability due to wood burning (needs to refill more often = more maintenance)

Comment
The John-Bull was originally built as an 0-4-0, but I decided to go with the more familiar look with the leading truck and covered tender to turn this engine to an early option for passenger service

-----------------------------------------------------------------

4-2-0 Norris

Introduction Date: 1838
Purpose: Passengers
Speed: 32 mph

Benefits:
+ Good curve speed thanks to the four-wheel leading truck
+ Good reliability thanks to anthracite coal

Drawbacks:
- More expensive
- High running cost due to anthracite coal

Comment
This overall performance of this engine should be much better than it's predecessors, but it will also be much more expensive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

4-4-0 Eight-Wheeler

Introduction Date: 1844
Purpose: Passengers
Speed: 40 mph

Benefits:
+ Good curve speed thanks to the four-wheel leading truck
+ Low running cost due to wood burning

Drawbacks:
- More expensive
- Poor reliability due to wood burning (needs to refill more often = more maintenance)

Comment
Much faster than the Norris, but also much more expensive.

[arikover]

Wow that looks really great!

[Bad_Brett]

So, one of the things I've struggled with for ~10 years is trying to figure out how to make the desert more interesting. I've always enjoyed the look of the dark green oaks against the golden hills, but the desert just looks ...flat and repetitive.

I have done a little experiment. I turned up the number of objects to eleven, and use the nearby_tile_object_type variable to create "landmarks"... And to my big surprise, it has worked flawlessly, even though generating a 4096x4096 map tok a lot of time.

By making use of the remove_cost_multiplier, my goal is to encourage the player to be creative when planning the routes and not just draw a straight line from point A to point B.



What do you think?

[sevenfm]

For me, it looks great, except for blurry flowers.
I always play with very high cost for demolition and landscaping and disabled water removing, to make road building more interesting.

[Bad_Brett]

For me, it looks great, except for blurry flowers.
I always play with very high cost for demolition and landscaping and disabled water removing, to make road building more interesting.

Thanks, you're right. I'll try to play arount with the opacity to get a sharper result.

Interesting. In that case, maybe I should make the rocks irremovable. I guess I thought it wouldn't make much sense to be able to level an entire mountain, but not being able to blow up some rocks... on the other hand, it would certainly make the rail building more interesting. Maybe something like this:

Level 1: Flowers, rubble, skeletons, animals - Auto-dozer, higher demolition cost
Level 2: Building such as cabins - No auto-doze, maximum demolition cost
Level 3: Canyon style rocks, burial grounds - Irremovable

Disable water removing actually makes sense now when we can build canals, locks and aqueducs (even though I have fond memories from my childhood when I always built small islands next to offshore platforms to be able to use trains )

[perverted monkey]

Level 3: Canyon style rocks, burial grounds - Irremovable

For burial grounds yes, for rocks IMO no, taking into consideration they are 1 tile only. If they could be bigger I would also say yes.
Those rocks make the real difference!

[Bad_Brett]

Level 3: Canyon style rocks, burial grounds - Irremovable

For burial grounds yes, for rocks IMO no, taking into consideration they are 1 tile only. If they could be bigger I would also say yes.
Those rocks make the real difference!

Of course they are unrealistically small right now, in order to not obscure the view too much and make it somewhat easier to create random patterns... But perhaps I'll do some experiments with bigger versions. It would be kind of cool to see the trains run between big piles of rock.

[Bad_Brett]

Here are my ideas for the next four engines:

0-8-0 Mud Digger

Introduction Date: 1844
Purpose: Freight
Speed: 30 mph

Benefits:
+ Great tractive effort
+ Low running cost due to wood burning

Drawbacks:
- Poor reliability due to wood burning (needs to refill more often = more maintenance)
- Poor curve speed

Comment
While the "Mud Digger" wasn't a very successful engine, it's one of the earliest examples of a pure north american freight locomotive.


4-4-0 American

Introduction Date: 1855
Purpose: Passengers
Speed: 52 mph

Benefits:
+ Much faster than earlier engines
+ Great curve speed
+ Low running cost due to wood burning

Drawbacks:
- Poor reliability due to wood burning (needs to refill more often = more maintenance)
- Performs poorly with many cars

Comment:
One of the most popular engines of the 19th century. that could achieve speeds of over a 100 km/h. While not very realistic, my idea is to give a penalty to this engine when hauling too many cars.


2-6-0 Mogul

Introduction Date: 1864
Purpose: Freight
Speed: 40 mph

Benefits:
+ Much more powerful than earlier engines
+ Low running cost due to wood burning

Drawbacks:
- Poor reliability due to wood burning (needs to refill more often = more maintenance)
+ Poor curve speed

Comment:
Suitable for long freight trains on tracks with few sharp turns.


4-6-0 Ten-Wheeler

Introduction Date: 1868
Purpose: General
Speed: 48 mph

Benefits:
+ More powerful than the American, faster than the Mogul
+ Can haul more cars on high speed than the American
+ Good curve speed
+ Low running cost due to wood burning

Drawbacks:
- Poor reliability due to wood burning (needs to refill more often = more maintenance)
- Neither the fastest or the most powerful engine

Comment:
The Ten-Wheeler is like the child of the American and the Mogul. It has decent speed and decent power and is therefore a good choice on lines with different kinds of cargo.

[Micheleromeo121]

I just recently discovered this 11 year old project literally this evening (4 hours ago) and what can I say, I LOVE every single locomotive and building you made in this NewGRF that OpenTTD totally needs.

Now, I have 2 questions:

will you make more locomotives? (like those used between 1900 and 1950)
I'm really curious since I noticed your challenger 4-6-6-0 in one of the previous posts..

And for the last question, What is still missing, before the release of Gold Rush?

(sorry if I did some mistakes, English is not my main language )

[Bad_Brett]

I just recently discovered this 11 year old project literally this evening (4 hours ago) and what can I say, I LOVE every single locomotive and building you made in this NewGRF that OpenTTD totally needs.

Thank you so much!

And for the last question, What is still missing, before the release of Gold Rush?

Mainly industries. But I'm dividing it into different parts, so perhaps I'll release the terrain and the trains earlier.

will you make more locomotives? (like those used between 1900 and 1950)
I'm really curious since I noticed your challenger 4-6-6-0 in one of the previous posts..

Eventually, yes. In the meantime, I can show you two late 19th century vehicles:

2-8-0 Consolidation


Introduction Date: 1874
Purpose: Freight
Speed: 45 mph

Benefits:
+ Faster and more powerful than the Mogul
+ Low running cost


4-6-0 Camelback


Introduction Date: 1879
Purpose: Passengers
Speed: 56 mph

Benefits:
+ Faster and more powerful than the standard Ten-Wheeler
+ Incredibly low running cost

Drawback:
- Expensive
- Really poor reliability
- Short vehicle and model life

Comment:
One of the most interesting designs of all times. I did a lot of research on this one, Putting the cab in the middle made it possible to utilize the bigger Wootten Firebox, which made it possible to brun culm, a very cheap byproduct of anthacrite coal. The design also improved tractive effort. However, the design was really dangerous for engineer, and the engineer and the ireman couldn't communicate properly, So the camelback design was eventually banned.

I want to make this engine a real spice pick. by adding all kinds of crazy bonuses and penalties.

[Micheleromeo121]

Thanks for the answers!
And thanks for the lovely description you made for each train available, really clear and simple to understand, That's what I like.

And again, thank you for the efforts you're putting into this project , I really hope you can publish your work as soon as possible!

[Micheleromeo121]

How's the project going?
Will we see any progress/update any time soon?

I also wanted to ask if you were planning to add more passenger coaches, since you showed only one type of passenger railcar Until now

[Bad_Brett]

How's the project going?
Will we see any progress/update any time soon?

I also wanted to ask if you were planning to add more passenger coaches, since you showed only one type of passenger railcar Until now

Maybe.

[Micheleromeo121]

rMQLfurdKwJKiJh-1600x900-noPad.jpg (17.26 KiB) Viewed 2599 times

[Bad_Brett]

I plan to have at least two passenger cars from each "era"; a cheaper car that can carry more passengers and a more exepensive car with a really long cargo age period. Maybe I'll add some spice picks as well, such as sleeping cars that can carry very few passengers but have the max cargo age period...